Prospective analysis of life-sustaining therapy discussions in the surgical intensive care unit: a housestaff perspective.

BACKGROUND: Prospective data addressing end-of-life care in the surgical ICU are lacking. We determined factors surrounding life-sustaining therapy discussions (LSTDs) in our surgical ICU as experienced by housestaff. STUDY DESIGN: Housestaff were interviewed daily about the occurrence of an LSTD between themselves and either a patient or surrogate. Patients for whom at least one LSTD occurred were compared with patients for whom an LSTD never occurred. Housestaff also completed a standardized questionnaire that captured events surrounding each LSTD. RESULTS: Eighty LSTDs occurred among 50 patients. Lack of decision-making capacity (p = 0.04), age (p = 0.02), and acuity (p = 0.01) predicted independently the occurrence of an LSTD. Housestaff were significantly more likely to both report recent clinical deterioration (p < 0.01) and to assign a worse prognosis (p < 0.01) to patients for whom an LSTD occurred. Housestaff initiated the majority of LSTDs (70.0%) and usually did so because of clinical deterioration (60.7%); patient surrogates were most commonly believed to initiate LSTDs because of lack of improvement (60.1%). In no instance did a patient initiate an LSTD. For 39 of 50 patients (78.0%), changes in end-of-life care plans were eventually enacted as proposed originally. Housestaff reported that the likelihood of enactment depended on both the preexisting end-of-life care plan and the proposed change in end-of-life care plan. CONCLUSIONS: Age, acuity, and lack of decision-making capacity were the most important factors involved in the initiation of an LSTD. Housestaff reported that they initiated LSTDs for different reasons and proposed different end-of-life care plans relative to both patients and their surrogates. These disparities can contribute to failed enactment of proposed changes in end-of-life care plans.

Clinical ethics and the quality initiative: a pilot study for the empirical evaluation of ethics case consultation.

The Institute of Medicine's quality imperatives include the need to provide safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable care. Less attention has been paid to quality metrics as they relate to the assessment of clinical ethics consultation and its impact on care. A better understanding of how ethics consultation influences the quality of care might identify opportunities for improvement. A descriptive pilot study, involving 7 hospitals in the New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, was conducted to identify key elements of the ethics consultative process that might impact clinical and psychosocial outcomes. A majority of consults involved medical or intensive care unit patients and end-of-life decision making; 75.5% had or received a do-not-resuscitate order, 90.6% lacked decision-making capacity, 43.4% had an advance directive. Conflict existed in a majority. Future research should include surrogate decision making, patients on nonmedical services who may have unrecognized ethical dilemmas, and the role of conflict in clinical care.